How to choose between creation and evolution.

[tas8831]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

Interesting.

I have a graduate degree in Anatomy and Cell Biology. I have not once considered even the possibility of supernatural creation in any of what I have seen.

In my experience, if you know very little about science, one might be tempted to accept the claims of creationist propagandists, but if you know a lot of science, you see the claims for what they are.

But please, tell me about some anatomy that indicates creation.

 

[tas8831]

If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.

It depends on what you mean by "where we came from."

Even if you don't take into account first life.
Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.

STRIKE ONE.

What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?
In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

So, I am concluding from your premise here that you have only read creationist material about evolution?

 

[tas8831]

No it doesn't:

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (reviewer's report in Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH? Biol Direct. 2012).
​

Abiogenesis is little more the a popular fantasy.

Non sequitur.

1. Evolution, as such, is NOT about abiogenesis, which was the point.
2. Quoting one person's opinion about the RNA world hypothesis does not mean that 'abiogenesis' is a fantasy.


But I do wonder - where are the brave creation scientists doing research into the biological and geological claims in the bible?

Please cite or link to the scientific research being done on hos God made DNA, or how an olive tree could survive being covered by brackish water for a year and yet still have living leaves?

Let's see the beef!

 

[tas8831]

The bible talks of people who swallow a lie.

It sure does...

 

[tas8831]

Wow you really don't have a clue do you? Those are comparative studies and the fossil record has no chimpanzees, because they are passed off as our ancestors. I'm not incredulous, I've followed the comparative genomics studies for years and they are hardly a convincing argument for human chimpanzee common ancestry.

They seem to convince the professionals.

 

[tas8831]

Are you going to ignore the fact you've already had this discussion a dozen times in the past already with various members of this forum?



Of course you are. That's what your entire argument boils down to: belief that something couldn't have happened because you don't want to believe it happened.

It's no different than the arguments you used to make against chromosome fusions or mutations affecting large numbers of DNA bases.

I concur. A few months back, Mark made an appearance and had mentioned that he had made certain arguments before. I searched the forum and read through several hundred posts in several threads, and yes, indeed, he makes the exact same arguments, using generally the exact same quotes and sources, no matter how many times he is shown to be wrong.

Hard to understand that level of blind commitment.

 

[tas8831]

Yet they will tell you first life doesn't matter/not part of the equation.

That is because it doesn't.

It is childishly dishonest for 'Christian' creationists to claim that abiogenesis is part of evolution.

It isn't.

IOW try to do away with what they cannot explain...their particular type science at it's best. lol

First life is what *does* matter.

'It is in the bible, I believe it, thats that' - your particular "science."

 

[xianghua]

No, it's not a watch because it's not a man-made and man-manufactured item. A watch is, by its definition, a MAN-MADE ITEM.

so a watch that were evolved naturally isnt a watch by that definition. right?

 

[bhsmte]

so a watch that were evolved naturally isnt a watch by that definition. right?

Show us one.

 

[xianghua]

Can you please tell me how that is not evidence of design?

i just go by your criteria. you said that all electric motor we know of were the product of design. but i said to you that i never seen someone who made them. so by your criteria i cnat conclude design till i will see someone who made an electric motor.

This is just typical of creationists. Even if we given you the actual design, you still claim that there is no evidence of design.

the same with the flagellum. this is an actual design and evolutionists said there is no evidence of design.

Now, please tell me where I can find web sources of designs for bacterial flagella? And where I can download software intended to design them?

actually some scientists makes artificial genomes in the lab.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interesting.

I have a graduate degree in Anatomy and Cell Biology. I have not once considered even the possibility of supernatural creation in any of what I have seen.

In my experience, if you know very little about science, one might be tempted to accept the claims of creationist propagandists, but if you know a lot of science, you see the claims for what they are.

But please, tell me about some anatomy that indicates creation.

All anatomy reveals very complex design, down to the molecular (specialized tissue) level. Pick any organ or system and look closely at the organization of it. This is purposeful design, thus creation.

As a 'cell biologist' what is needed for a single cell to be viable as a living organism? Did the first life form contain all the elements and resources to become what evolution claims it became? Evolution has to explain this as it claims to have started with the first life form.

How does a cell change (either spontaneously or over time) to form 'specialize' tissue necessary for different functions.

Are complex organs built one step at a time or all at once? For example, did the muscles that move eyeballs evolve later because we needed to look around without moving our heads, or did the whole system evolve together?

When did the eye/brain connection occur? How did the part of the brain that transforms the light coming into the eye into the image the brain sees evolve?

Did eyelids come later to protect the eyes, or were they in the original package?

Did the lubricant of 'tears' with it's drainage system evolve later because of 'dry eyes' or did evolution anticipate this need?

Is there any fossil evidence to support your answers?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a watch that were evolved naturally isnt a watch by that definition. right?

A watch is a manufactured mechanical device.
Not a biologically evolved organism.

By definition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Pick any organ or system and look closely at the organization of it. This is purposeful design, thus creation.

I'll pick a few things.

- the non-functioning eyes of moles, which are hidden away behind a layer of skin
- the broken GULO gene in primates
- the wisdom teeth of humans, which more often then not need to be pulled because our mouth is too small to accomodate them
- the human spine which not optimal for bipedalism, causing lower back pains in most humans at some point in their life
- the inactive teeth-building genes in chickens
- the appendix, which can explode and kill you
- the tube that humans use for both eating and breathing, making consuming food a process that can make you choke to death
- man nipples
- .....

 

[xianghua]

They can easily design eyes

where?

As I pointed out, which you have ignored, the paper only examined one aspect of the eye

correct. but that was the main "flaw" your paper was talking about. so this is why i gave this paper as evidence against your paper.

Because even if you did manage to prove that the vertebrate eye is an optimal design, that would mean that the cephalopod eye is therefore a suboptimal design.

not realy. since a cephalopod live underwater and build in a different way than many other creatures. so the fact that it has a different kind of eye structure doesnt prove its a flaw structure. also remember the point above that your paper already fail to identify a good design. so basically no one is able to identify a bad design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'll pick a few things.

- the non-functioning eyes of moles, which are hidden away behind a layer of skin..

Scientists shed light on eyesight of moles | News | The University of Aberdeen

Do you want me to go on?

 

[xianghua]

For the sake of the argument, I'm gonna call it an elephant.

so this is an elephant?:

ok.

(image from Bear Wood Watch)

 

[Speedwell]

so this is an elephant?:

ok.

(image from Bear Wood Watch)

Yes, it's an elephant designed to be worn on the wrist and used to tell time. And because we know it was designed that means that other elephants, the big grey ones who live in the jungle and have tusks, are also designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientists shed light on eyesight of moles | News | The University of Aberdeen

Do you want me to go on?

From the link:

Our work has shown that in fact a partially formed eye can be very important for the ecology and survival of the animal, and that there is nothing inherently impossible about the evolution of the eye.

Also this one:

It has also been assumed that animals that live in the dark will gradually lose their eyes through evolution, like cavefish which have no functional eyes.


Sure, do go on. At least, if you wish to continue failing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this is an elephant?:

ok.

(image from Bear Wood Watch)

"For the sake of argument", I can call it an elephant just like "for the sake of argument" you call your imagined biological organisms labels of mechanical devices of human manufacturing.

I see the point went far over your head, as usual.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From the link:

Our work has shown that in fact a partially formed eye can be very important for the ecology and survival of the animal, and that there is nothing inherently impossible about the evolution of the eye.

Also this one:

It has also been assumed that animals that live in the dark will gradually lose their eyes through evolution, like cavefish which have no functional eyes.


Sure, do go on. At least, if you wish to continue failing.

I made my point (without regard to evolution) that moles eyes in fact do function.